CA Unpub Decisions

In an information filed by the Los Angeles County District Attorney’s Office, defendant and appellant Wayne Dinsmore Gray was charged with three counts of murder (Pen. Code, § 187, subd. (a); counts 1-3) and one count of possession of a firearm by a felon (§ 29800, subd. (a)(1); count 5). As to counts 1 through 3, it was alleged that defendant used and personally and intentionally discharged a handgun (§ 12022.53, subds. (b)-(d)), a principal used and personally and intentionally discharged a handgun (§ 12022.53, subds. (b)-(e)), and the murders were committed for the benefit of, at the direction of, and in association with a criminal street gang with the specific intent to promote, further, and assist criminal conduct by gang members (§ 186.22, subds. (b)(1) & (b)(5)). As to counts 1 through 3, a special circumstance was alleged that defendant committed multiple murders within the meaning of section 190.2, subdivision (a)(3). As to count 1, a special circumstance was alleg

This case arose out of an early morning confrontation at a convenience store. A jury convicted defendant John Thomas Pulskamp of the attempted voluntary manslaughter of one of the store’s customers, Raul Rubio (Pen. Code, §§ 192, subd. (a), 664), as a lesser offense of attempted murder and found true the allegation Pulskamp personally used a deadly and dangerous weapon, a truck, in the commission of the crime (id., § 12022, subd. (b)(1)). The jury also convicted him of assault with a deadly weapon on the store clerk (id., § 245, subd. (a)(1)), vandalism of the store causing over $400 in damage (id., § 594, subd. (a)), and misdemeanor evading a peace officer (Veh. Code, § 2800.1, subd. (a)). Pulskamp pleaded no contest to an additional charge of vandalism over $400 based on damage he caused to Rubio’s car.

Fong Yu Liu obtained a judgment against Xiao Cheng Liu for his conversion of proceeds from the sale of “Little Chicken Seeking Food,” a painting by the noted Chinese artist Qi Baishi. Xiao Cheng appeals, contending the judgment is unsupported by substantial evidence because his testimony was credible whereas Fong Yu’s was not. (We use the parties’ given names for clarity.) We conclude that under the applicable standard of review we may not reweigh the evidence, and therefore affirm.

This appeal arises from a contract to purchase a hotel. At the heart of the dispute is a hotel management agreement. The purchaser did not discover until after it allowed the purchase contract to terminate that the management company had failed to exercise its option to renew. The purchaser alleged that the management agreement was so favorable to the management company that its termination added $11 million to the value of the hotel. The purchaser sued the seller and the management company, alleging causes of action, including breach of contract, fraud, negligent misrepresentation and promissory estoppel. The trial court found in favor of the defendants. We affirm.

Passed in the 2014 General Election, Proposition 47 reclassified as misdemeanors certain offenses that had previously been classified as felonies or “wobblers.” (People v. Buycks (2018) 5 Cal.5th 857, 870–871 (Buycks).) The initiative also added Penal Code section 1170.18, which permits persons previously convicted of felony offenses that had become misdemeanors under Proposition 47 to have those felony convictions resentenced or redesignated as misdemeanors. (Id. at p. 871.)
Following his conviction in 2009, respondent Kwame Louder was sentenced to 15 years in prison, consisting of 3 years for a second degree burglary conviction (§ 459; count 1), plus 12 years for 12 prison priors subject to the one-year enhancement under section 667.5, subdivision (b). After the passage of Proposition 47, Louder successfully petitioned to have four of his prior convictions reduced to misdemeanors.

On June 8, 2018, the Contra Costa County District Attorney filed a Welfare and Institutions Code section 602 petition alleging that the 16-year-old appellant had committed acts constituting the felony offense of assault with force likely to produce great bodily injury against his father on June 6, 2018 (Pen. Code, § 245, subd. (a)(4)) (count one); the misdemeanor offense of battery against his mother on May 12, 2018 (Pen. Code, §§ 242; 243, subd. (a)) (count two); and the misdemeanor offense of resisting, obstructing, or delaying a peace officer on May 11, 2018 (Pen. Code, § 148, subd. (a)(1)) (count three). The offenses stemmed from incidents of physical disputes between appellant and his parents that arose from appellant’s failure to follow home rules and his “addiction” to playing video games. During a probation department interview, appellant admitted playing video games three to four hours per day on weekdays and six to eight hours per day on weekends.

Defendant Christian Antonio Zuniga was sentenced to four years of felony probation with eight months in county jail and ordered to pay restitution after a jury found him guilty of driving under the influence of alcohol and causing injury in connection with an incident in which he drove into the rear of a fire engine. We previously affirmed Zuniga’s conviction. (People v. Zuniga (Mar. 8, 2018, A151618) [nonpub. opn.] (Zuniga).) Zuniga now appeals the trial court’s restitution order, and his appointed counsel has asked this court to independently examine the record in accordance with People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 (Wende) to determine if there are any arguable issues that require briefing. Zuniga was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief, and did not do so. We have independently reviewed the record in accordance with our Wende obligations and find no arguable issues. We thus affirm.

Appellant Perfecto Garcia appeals his conviction after a jury trial for one count of assault with a deadly weapon for purposefully hitting Darrel Hanson with his car. Garcia’s counsel has filed a brief pursuant to People v. Wende (1979) 25 Cal.3d 436 and requests that we conduct an independent review of the record. Garcia was informed of his right to file a supplemental brief and did not do so. (People v. Kelly (2006) 40 Cal.4th 106, 124.) Having independently reviewed the record, we conclude there are no issues that require further briefing and affirm the judgment.

Gregory Alexander appeals from a judgment based on a guilty plea convicting him of carjacking (Pen. Code, § 215) and two misdemeanors, finding true the allegations supporting two sentence enhancements, and imposing a prison sentence of 13 years 8 months. He contends that the trial court abused its discretion by failing either to grant his motion to withdraw his plea or to appoint substitute counsel to investigate and present that motion.
At the sentencing hearing, defendant’s appointed counsel, Karen Olson, argued that she had been ineffective in failing to discover his out-of-state criminal record before advising him to accept a plea bargain with an open plea, instead of an alternative offer with a guaranteed midterm sentence. Defendant had told Olson that he had no prior prison terms or felonies. After his plea, however, she learned of his extensive criminal history in New Jersey—a history that would have led her to advise him to accept the midterm sentence. The trial court d

Plaintiff Ernesto Floresca pled guilty in federal district court to nine counts of federal wire and mail fraud in connection with a mortgage fraud investigation by federal law enforcement authorities. At the sentencing hearing, which he personally attended, the federal district court sentenced him to three months in prison, followed by two years of supervised release including three months on home detention. He then sued his criminal defense attorney, respondent James McElroy, seeking more than $100,000 in damages for legal malpractice in connection with his sentence. He contended his attorney had been negligent by failing initially to notice that the prosecutor had recommended the three-month prison term and then failing to contest that recommendation at the sentencing hearing.

Defendant John Lindenmeyer moves to dismiss the appeal of plaintiff Fletcher Carson on the ground that Carson’s notice of appeal was untimely filed. We agree, grant the motion, and dismiss the appeal.

Eric Cook was convicted by a jury of second degree burglary, receiving stolen property, and possessing burglary tools. Cook contends the trial court erroneously modified the standard jury instruction on aiding and abetting burglary, and that the error was prejudicial. He also asserts the prosecutor committed prejudicial misconduct in closing argument and that a condition of his mandatory supervision that prohibits him from possessing burglary tools and spark plugs is unconstitutionally vague and overbroad. We modify the supervision condition to add a scienter requirement, and otherwise affirm the judgment.

The Institute of Imaginal Studies (IIS) sued the Institute of Noetic Science (IONS) after a proposed business and real estate deal between the two failed. Two misrepresentation causes of action were dismissed as time-barred following a demurrer, and two contract-based claims were rejected on the merits following a court trial. IIS claims that it should have been allowed to proceed on its two misrepresentation causes of action and that the trial court erred in finding in IONS’s favor on the contract causes of action. We affirm.

Defendant Golden Age Convalescent Hospital, Inc. (Golden Age) appeals from a judgment and order entered after a court trial of an unlawful detainer action that awarded damages and possession of property to 523 Burlingame Ave., LLC (Burlingame). Golden Age argues that the trial court wrongfully deprived Golden Age of its constitutional right to a jury trial and committed a variety of other procedural errors. Finding no error, we affirm the judgment and order.